禪宗的《無心論》無疑是屬於佛教義理脈絡下的一篇文章，但是以「無心」為篇名則很容易讓人聯想到「道家」義理中的「無心」，或者認為其對佛教的理解是否停在「格義」的階段，將佛、道混為一談。本文的寫作宗旨即在辨析其間義理異同，俾使「無心」一語在不同的脈絡裡得到相應的理解。本文依「依宗起教，以教定宗」的大原則下，分別由佛、道的工夫進路和終極旨趣作一比較。在工夫進路上「無心」一詞，無論佛、道都有損去執著、蕩相遣執的涵義，損之又損、無之又無，直到無法執、無工夫相的法、我兼忘的自然境界，這是兩家「無心」共通處，在「共法」的工夫教路上，其間的區別度委實不大。兩家在「無心」工夫的造極境界上，佛教則成就佛的涅槃解脫，道家則為「無為而無不為」的聖人境界。兩家最大的差異在於佛教基於「緣起性空」的教義，並不立一形上根源作為肯定一切法的根據，若有所肯定，都是基於「無自性」的緣起法義下生滅不定的假名法、方便法。而道家則有一形上的道體，肯定萬物有一自己如此的本性，聖王即是順任此萬物之自然本性而成全之、實現之。「無心」的解釋不能悖離上述兩家的義理脈絡，否則將混淆不清；反之，若扣緊其宗趣來理解，則其理路涵義亦必清晰明確。

Wu Xin Lun by Chan Zong is undoubtedly an article about Buddhism philosophical connotation. However, naming it as “Wu Xin” is very likely for people to associate it with the Taoism connotation of Wu Xin, or to think its interpretation of Buddhism is only frozen at the phase of Analogical interpretation that mixes Buddhism and Taoism into one. The main purpose of this article serves to indicate the similarities and differences between the two doctrines, and to allocate the term “Wu Xin” to respectively appropriate interpretation in different domain. This article will compare the Gongfu approach and ultimate object of Buddhism and Taoism under the principle of “Yi Zong Qi Jiao Yi Jiao Ding Zong”. In the view of Gongfu approach, in both Buddhism and Taoism, the term “Wu Xin” contains the meaning of eliminating dedication, until reaching the state of no dedication and physiognomy, and no recognition of self and Teaching. This is the similarity of the interpretation in the Teaching approach between both Buddhism and Taoism. In Buddhism, the ultimate state of Wu Xin completes the theory of Nie Pan; in Taoism, the sublime realm of “Do Nothing and Do Everything”. The most significant difference between the two doctrines is that Buddhism confirms on all existence of object, which is not limited to any fo　re is confirmation, they are based on the saying of Uncertain Birth and Death, which originates from the theory of “Non-Substantiality”. On the other hand, Toaism suggests that objects are created as the way they are; the Self Cultivation of Internal and External is to let the natural characters of all object be themselves and be carried out. The interpretation of “Wu Xin” has to stick to the philosophical connotation of the both doctrines; otherwise there will be confusion and ambiguity. If the term “Wu Xin” is interpreted with its ultimate objective, its approach and connotation should be direct and clear.